Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Kumar vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. on 5 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2005(2)JCR459(JHR)], 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 34, (2005) 106 FACLR 337, (2005) 3 JLJR 190, (2005) 2 JCR 459 (JHA)
Bench: Altamas Kabir, R.K. Merathia
ORDER
1. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for consideration today itself.
2. The father of the appellant writ petitioner is said to have been appointed as security guard under the Central Coalfields Limited in the year 1984. He died in harness on 23rd November, 1997 and it may be relevant to indicate that his mother, Bachni Devi, died prior to his father on 17th August, 1997. A death certificate in that behalf has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the memorandum of appeal.
3. As will appear from the materials available on the record the appellant writ petitioner applied to the respondent company for appointment on compassionate ground in December 1999 and he was also asked to appear at an interview on 17th April, 2001 pursuant to the said application. It is the case of the writ petitioner appellant that after lapse of one year, by a letter dated 13th March, 2002 he was asked to produce the service record of his father. Since nothing further was done in the matter, the appellant writ petitioner filed a fresh representation on 6th April, 2004 but even then it had no effect and accordingly, he was compelled to file a writ application, WP (S) 2352 of 2004, which was disposed of with the direction upon the respondents to consider and dispose of the appellant's application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three months from 30th April, 2004. Subsequently, the Personnel Manager of the respondent company informed the appellant writ petitioner by his letter dated 10th August, 2004 that his application for appointment had been rejected on the ground that it had been made at a belated stage i.e. four years after the death of his father. According to the respondents the said belated application was contrary to the scheme, which provided that a dependent of the deceased, who applies within six months from the date of death of the deceased, would be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The said decision of the respondent was challenged by the appellant writ petitioner in WP (S) 5291 of 2004 which was dismissed on 30th September, 2004, purportedly on the ratio of the decision of a Bench of this Court in WP (S) 6589 of 2002.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant writ petitioner preferred the instant appeal and it has been mainly contended by Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, appearing in support of the appeal that the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI which became effective from 1st July, 1996 was operative at the relevant time when the father of the appellant died. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition. Mr. Singh very strongly urged that the case of the writ petitioner appellant was different from that of the decision in WP (S) 6589 of 2002, since at the time of the death of his father he was minor and paragraph 9.5.0 of the NCWA VI would have application in his case whereas in the said decision what fell for consideration was the general provision under paragraph 9.3.2 of the NCWAs. IV and V.
5. Mr. Singh pointed out that as far as minors were concerned, there was no stipulation in NCWA VI that an application had to be made within six months from the date of death. In the instant case, the said provision became all the less applicable on account of the fact that both the parents of the appellant had died when he was a minor and he could make such application for appointment on compassionate ground only on attaining majority. As the facts will indicate, the appellant writ petitioner applied to the respondent company for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of NCWA VI after he became 18 years of age. Mr. Singh urged that in the instant case, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the provision of para 9.5.0 as different from that of paragraph 9.3.2 and/or paragraph 9.4.2 of the NCWAs. IV and V.
6. Appearing for the respondents, Mr. Prasad submitted that since according to the scheme envisaged, the appellant writ petitioner had failed to apply within six months from the date of death of his father, but had chosen to apply only after expiry of four years, he was found ineligible and his case was rightly rejected by the respondents.
7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we cannot help but observe, that the case of the appellant writ petitioner stands on a different footing from that of Sushil Kumar Vengra v. Union of India and Ors., which had been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, as reported in 2005 (1) JCR 282. In the said case relied on by the learned Single Judge and Mr. Prasad, the Court was considering the case of appointment on compassionate ground as per para 9.3.2 of the said agreement. The case of a minor has been specifically provided for in para 9.5.0 and it appears to have been the intention of the respondent company that those who are minors at the time when their parents in employment die, should be provided with employment once the minor attains majority. If that be the simple interpretation of para 9.5.0 of the NCWA VI, we see no reason why the said benefit should not be extended to the appellant writ petitioner as well. The objection taken, that he had applied only four years after death of his father, besides being highly technical, is also not supported by the scheme since it does not in any way indicate that a minor has to apply within six months from the date of the deceased.
8. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the appellant writ petitioner for employment commensurate with his qualification, if he is otherwise eligible, within three months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs.